Why These Arguments Made Against James Potter Are Not Necessarily True
by Tasha9315
Summary: James Potter is probably the most harshly and unfairly judged character on the Harry Potter series. James Potter is not a fully fleshed out character and hence it's just so easy and convenient for people to make assumptions about him. Many fans make accusations against him that are not true or not necessarily true, but they insist they're definitely true.
1. Chapter 1

I do NOT own Harry Potter and it's characters. This is just an opinion based book.

As I said in my introduction, I'm covering arguments against James Potter are not true or not necessarily true. Seriously, he's barely even a character, but some people make him out to worse than even Vodlemort and Umbridge.

To be clear: I am NOT trying to paint James as a saint. I know he's not a saint and he had his faults. And I don't deny that he was jerk and a bully and wrong in Snape's Worst Memory. I'm just debunking wrongful arguments against him which are misinterpretations or assumptions.

Another thing: Yes, some of these arguments can be canon compliant, but in the case of those, I'm arguing why they're not NECESSARILY canon (since some people argue they're definitely canon).

Here are the arguments that I'll be debunking in this book:

\- He was putting on an act with Lily the whole time (He's only pretending to be good)

\- He didn't change - He continued bullying Snape behind Lily's back and lied to her

\- He was horrible to Vernon and Petunia/ he broke up Lily's family/ he boasted about his wealth to Vernon/ he's the reason the Dursleys treated Harry horribly

\- He hexed/pranked muggle cops/ he baited muggle cops/ he used magic in front of muggle cops

\- He wanted to abandon his family to go out for excursions with his cloak

\- He's very likely to potentially cheat on Lily

\- He's a potential wife-beater/domestic abuser

\- He doesn't care about what Lily wants.

\- He didn't really change/ there's no evidence that he changed/ people don't change that quickly/ there's no evidence that he's a good person

\- I can't interpret James as being bad and still remain canon compliant

\- He's prejudiced against poor people/ ugly people and muggles

\- He only bullied Snape because Snape was a nerdy, poor working class boy and because he was jealous of Snape's relationship with Lily

\- He stalked/harassed and tried to force Lily to go out with him

\- He's just like/ worse then/ more cruel than Draco Malfoy and Dudley Dursley/ Dumbledore compares him to Draco/ Rowling draws a parallel between him and Dudley

\- He was so arrogant that he thought he could defeat Voldemort wandless/ he chose Sirius/Peter out of cockiness and he caused his family's death

\- He was horrible towards Peter and caused Peter to betray him

\- He only cared about fame/attention and would have used Harry for his fame if he lived

\- He stalked Snape with the Marauders Map and Invisibility Cloak to attack him

\- He was only friends with Remus and Peter because they were his dorm-mates and he didn't really care about them/ he mistrusted and abandoned Remus.

\- He only saved Snape from the werewolf to save his own skin.

\- He stole Lily from Snape

\- Other stupid petty arguments


	2. Chapter 2

****He was putting on an act with Lily/He was pretending to be good****

Some people argue that James was just putting on an act in front of Lily. This is just stupid. He was with her for 4 years. Are you telling me that he "pretended" to be good for 4 whole years? If he had to put on an act in front of Lily, he would have grown tired of putting on an act and he would have lost his interest in their relationship months after they started dating. What guy would like staying in a relationship for years where he couldn't be himself? Unless he had an agenda.

If his agenda was merely dating her, he already achieved that, so he would have moved on months after dating her if he was merely pretending. Instead, he married her. Again, why would a guy marry a girl that he couldn't be himself around, unless he had an ulterior motive for marrying her? What ulterior motive could he have had? Her looks? He could have found someone equally attractive (Didn't Lucius find attractive Narcissa who supported his bad traits?). Her money? He was the rich one.

Plus, if he was pretending, wouldn't Lily have found a James sized hole on the door the moment Harry was Voldemort's target. Why would a "devious" guy who was only "pretending" to be good still be sticking around even when his life was in danger? And let's not forget that James' first instinct when Voldemort attacked was to yell at Lily to escape with Harry while he held Voldemort off for them (wandless). He instinctively put Lily and Harry's life above his own rather than instinctively trying to make a run for it to save himself. Does this sound like a guy who was pretending to be good?

People make this accusation based on Sirius and Remus saying that he still hexed Snape in his 7th year. They DIDIN'T say that all his change was an act. They said that he deflated his head and stopped hexing people for fun. They didn't say that he "pretended" to deflate his head and stop hexing people for fun in front of Lily. As for him hexing Snape, Remus explained that it was because Snape never lost an opportunity to curse him either, which sounds like by their 7th year, James and Snape had a mutual hexing war going on. Not commendable, but change doesn't mean he has to be prefect and a saint. No one is perfect.

And no, Remus was NOT lying. There's no proof that Remus lied and if Remus wanted to lie, he could have outright denied that James was hexing Snape in his 7th year. Sirius didn't say that he lied to Lily. Sirius could merely have been implying that the hexing war between James and Snape went on without Lily knowing much it. Note that Sirius says she didn't know TOO MUCH about it which implies she knew a little bit about it. And we don't even know for sure if she cared. She was no longer friends with Snape and Snape would most certainly have been deeper in with his proto-Death Eater friends. Just because James didn't tell Lily about his ongoing feud with Snape, it doesn't mean that he was putting on act with her or deceiving her.


	3. Chapter 3

**Part 1 of 4 of the "evidence" he didn't change arguments**

 **He didn't change - He continued bullying Snape behind Lily's back and lied to her**

First of all, Sirius and Remus didn't say that he bullied Snape in his 7th year, but that he hexed him. Hexing someone doesn't necessarily mean bullying.

Second of all, Remus said that he only continued hexing Snape because Snape never lost an opportunity to curse him either:

 ** _"_** ** _Well, Snape was a special case. I mean, he never lost an opportunity to hex James so you couldn't really expect James to take that lying down, could you?"_**

This indicates that it was at least a mutual hexing war between both boys. It's not bullying if they were both hexing each other. Some people argue with me that Remus lied, but what evidence do you have that Remus lied? There IS evidence that Remus was telling the truth

 **Evidence 1: Remus could have outright lied that James stopped hexing Snape in his 7th year**

Seriously, if Remus wanted to lie, why not lie that James stopped hexing Snape in his 7th year? Why admit that fact and add that it was because Snape never lost an opportunity to curse him?

 **Evidence 2: Remus' choice of words**

 ** _"_** ** _Well, Snape was a special case. I mean, he never lost an opportunity to hex James so you couldn't really expect James to take that lying down, could you?"_**

Remus didn't use a dismissive and simplified sentence and neither did he use a convoluted/complicated sentence. But his sentence was complex enough. If he was lying, he would have just said something simple and dismissive like "Snape hexed your father too," People can't really crack their brain on the spot to come up with complex sentences when they lie, and if they do, the sentence ends up coming out muddled and confusing with unnecessary adverbs/adjectives.

\- **Opportunity** = People harp about how James always had 3 friends backing him up, but this is where opportunity plays. Remember at the end of the 5th book, Draco waits for an opportunity to get Harry alone before attempting to ambush him? Similarly, whenever Snape caught James alone, he could have seized the opportunity for payback. And James wouldn't have had the map with him at all times especially since there are 3 other owners of the map. Harry didn't have the map with him when Draco ambushed him.

\- **Curse** = It's telling that Remus chose the worse "curse" instead of "hex". Remus had just said that James stopped hexing people for fun. If he was lying, he would have continued using the same word "hex". His brain wouldn't have bothered switched to using a new word because it would have been busy lying.

Plus, it's also noteworthy that curses are darker and more dangerous than hexes. In SWM, we see Snape choose to use a curse (Sectumsempra) instead of hexes and jinxes to use against James. Later in DH, Remus said that Sectumsempra was Snape's specialty, meaning he used it quite often in school. Remus also didn't know that Levicopus was Snape's spell, meaning Snape probably never used hexes such a Levicorpus on James, but usually chose curses instead.

\- **You** = Lies usually omit nouns/pronouns. But this sentence has 2 "yous" close to each other. A lie would usually be more like "couldn't' expect him to take that lying down"

 **Evidence 3: Rowling didn't specify that James and Sirius' relentless bullying was for all 7 years.**

Pottermore states that Remus didn't approve of James and Sirius' relentless bullying of Snape. BUT, it didn't specify the timeframe of the relentless bullying. It's possible that it was relentless bullying in the first 5 years or so, but by their 7th year when James pretty much decided to leave Snape alone, Snape decided it was payback time and it resulted in a mutual hexing war where they would take turns trying to get each other.

 **Evidence 4: James was probably not even headboy**

There's only one mention of James being headboy throughout the series. Even that was in the first book through Hagrid. In the 5th book, it was revealed that James wasn't a prefect. Harry was relieved when he finds out his father wasn't a prefect like him. If James was headboy, Harry would still have felt bad as his father was headboy.

Maybe he was headboy, but this doesn't mean much. It's possible that James had a virtue to keep his feud with Snape between them instead of telling on him. We have no evidence that James was whinny boy or a telltale who complained about every small thing someone did to him to the authorities. He would be even less inclined to complain if he himself was hexing Snape. If they were both hexing each other, James had nothing to complain about. And Snape doesn't seem like one to be intimidated by James' headboy position.

 **Evidence 5: Remus is a fair person**

Remus is generally a fair person. He's not the type to accuse someone of something they didn't do. In HBP, he fairly advises Harry not to judge Snape and he fairly noted his gratitude that Snape dedicatedly brewed his potion for him during Harry's third year.

 **Evidence 6: Remus was NOT lying that Snape was jealous of James**

Some people argue that Remus was lying when he said Snape was jealous of James, but he WASN'T. There's a memory of Snape attempting to get on a broom. In the Prince's Tale, when Snape speaks about James to Lily, his jealousy of James is evident. Whenever he speaks about James to Harry, he talks about James' fame and attention seeking and Quiditch skills. Rowling herself said on Twitter that Snape projected his hatred and jealousy of James on Harry.

 **Evidence 7: There is NO evidence that James used the Marauders Map and cloak to scout for Snape**

Some people bring up that James had the map and cloak to stalk Snape, but seriously, there's no evidence for this. The one memory we see shows James and Sirius attacking Snape on impulse rather than making a calculated attack. Considering Pottermore states that Snape was obsessed with exposing James in wrongdoing (which Sirius, Remus and Lily attest to), it seems like Snape's the one who was following/ stalking the Marauders rather than the other way around.

 **Evidence 8: Snape had his Death Eater friends**

After Snape's friendship with Lily ended, it's logical to deduce that he got in even deeper with his proto Death Eater friends (He even became a Death Eater). Sirius said that he was part of a group that almost all turned out to be Death Eaters. It's possible that they helped him.

 **Evidence 9: There's NO real evidence that he lied**

Seriously, there's no actual evidence that Remus lied other than the assumption of certain fans. Plus, this is not real life. In a work of fiction, anything a character says is canon unless proven otherwise.

Yes, James didn't seem to have told Lily about his ongoing hexing war with Snape. Not commendable, but just because he changed, it doesn't mean he's saint. Noone is perfect. And he was still a 17-18 year old teenager. His change would have had to be gradual. He had changed enough to be less arrogant and stop hexing people for fun even if he hadn't outgrown his hostility towards Snape by then. Just because he kept his ongoing feud from Lily, it doesn't mean that he was deceiving her and not sincere in their relationship. Lily and Snape were not even friends anymore then. We can't even be sure if she cared about the immature feud between both boys.

Plus, his creator herself (Rowling) said on Pottermore that in the final few months of his Hogwarts years, his priorities changed to focus on the war and a world beyond Hogwarts **(Marauders Map- Pottermore).** I believe Severus Snape falls under a "world beyond Hogwarts", so even if he was hexing Snape in his final year, evidently stopped in his final few months. And I'm sure he matured even more after he left Hogwarts, especially after he became a father.


	4. Chapter 4

****Part 2 of 4 of the "evidence" he didn't change arguments****

 ** **His disagreement with Vernon Dursley****

I've heard many variations to this silly argument including:

-He was horrible to the Dursleys

-He's the reason Harry was mistreated at the Dursleys

-He boasted about his wealth

-He didn't apologize to Vernon

First of all, look at Vernon Dursley. He's a horrible person. It's a wonder the only 2 known people to have a personal problem with James are Snape and Vernon (both adult bullies of children). Second of all, even if he was horrible to Vernon, how the HELL does that justify years of child abuse? Third of all, Vernon and Petunia treated Harry horribly because they thought of wizards in general as freaks and Petunia was jealous of Lily. Vernon expressed his prejudiced view of wizards even before he met James ****(Vernon and Petunia Dursley – Pottermore).**** Fourth of all, it was Vernon who was horrible to James.

That's right. It's only the people who read the text with a biased opinion that would fault James. Here's what the text says (you can find it word for word on the Pottermore page of Vernon and Petunia Dursley):

 ** _ **James was amused by Vernon, and made the mistake of showing it.**_**

This seems to be a common thing among purebloods. Even Arthur Weasley was amused by Vernon. No one calls Arthur a bad person right? I take it as purebloods such as James and Arthur simply weren't used to mingling with muggles. At worse, this is immaturity and NOT him being horrible or mean or arrogant.

 ** _ **Vernon tried to patronize James, asking what car he drove.**_**

See, Rowling uses the word "patronize" to describe Vernon's action. Vernon was the one who was probably boasting about his car and patronizing James for not having a car as "great" as his.

 ** _ **James described his racing broom.**_**

 _Again, we have to remember James is pureblood and not accustomed to muggle culture. Vernon asked about his car, and he talked about his form of transportation. Not being used to mingling with muggles, it probably didn't occur to him that Vernon (a muggle) would find him talking about his broom odd._

 ** _ **Vernon supposed out loud that wizards had to live on unemployment benefit.**_**

Vernon is a grown (at least 20 something year old man) patronizing an 18 year old boy for not having a car and accusing him of being an unemployed bum. It was Vernon who was being horrible to James.

 ** _ **James explained about Gringotts, and the fortune his parents had saved there, in solid gold.**_**

This seems to be James countering Vernon's accusation of him living off government unemployment. Oh, excuse James for daring to answer back to Vernon's accusation. Should he have just sat back and taken the accusation with no self-respect?

He wasn't boasting like some accuse him off. If Rowling meant that he was boasting, she would have used the word "boasted". Instead she used the word "explained" which indicates James explaining that he didn't live off government unemployment and that he had his wealth instead.

 ** _ **Vernon could not tell whether he was being made fun of or not, and grew angry.**_**

Again, this seems to be a clash of culture more than anything. Vernon could not tell if he was being made fun of? This seems to be because he hasn't heard of Gringotts.

 ** _ **The evening ended with Vernon and Petunia storming out of the restaurant, while Lily burst into tears and James (a little ashamed of himself) promised to make things up with Vernon at the earliest opportunity.**_**

As you can see, the disagreement was mostly Vernon's fault. Even if you deem James partly at fault, he was only an 18 year old boy. And everyone makes mistakes. People expect James to be a saint just because he changed, but no one is a saint.

The important this is that even if James did make a mistake, he felt ashamed about angering Vernon and because Lily was in tears. He even agreed to be the bigger man and make things up with Vernon even if the disagreement was mostly Vernon's fault. He was willing to apologize to Vernon and he didn't expect an apology from Vernon for patronizing him and calling him an unemployed bum. This shows that he did care about Lily and felt bad that she cried.

 ** _ **This never happened. Petunia did not want Lily as a bridesmaid, because she was tired of being overshadowed; Lily was hurt. Vernon refused to speak to James at the reception, but described him, within James' earshot, as 'some kind of amateur magician'.**_**

See, James did seem to attempt to apologize to Vernon but Vernon was the one who refused to speak to him. Not only that, Vernon even rudely described James as "some kind of amateur magician" within earshot (a great insult to wizards). James didn't make a scene because of this. He put up with such treatment from Vernon for Lily's sake. Rather than criticizing him for any mistake he may have made (which he was sorry for), he should be credited for putting up with Vernon's shit without hexing him or storming out of the wedding. We see in 7 books, how horrible Vernon is.

Another thing, James' disagreement with Vernon did NOT break Lily's family up. There's NO mention of this. Lily and Petunia already had a sour relationship and still continued to have the same sour relationship. Lily and James were still invited to Petunia's wedding and Petunia still sent Lily a vase for Christmas. There's also NO evidence that this disagreement was why Vernon and Petunia treated Harry horribly. Vernon and Petunia hated wizards whom they deemed "abnormal" people/freaks. Even if James didn't have the disagreement with Vernon, Petunia would still have been petty and jealous of Lily and Vernon would still have been prejudiced against wizards. Vernon called wizards freaks before he even met James (when Petunia told him about Lily).


	5. Chapter 5

**Thank you guys so much for your reviews:) I agree with all of you!**

 **Guest review: I wasn't saying that James was saint. I agree that he had his faults and he was jerk as a teen, but my point was that he changed to be a better person and that he isn't a demon or as bad as some fans make him out to be. And I'm defending the wrongful and exaggerated accusations. I'm not saying that he never made any mistakes.**

 **Part 3 of 4 of the "evidence" he didn't change arguments**

 **He hexed/pranked/jeered at muggle-cops**

Another reason that just proves people read everything about James with a biased perspective. James and Sirius were NOT muggle-baiting or pranking muggles. They were escaping from Death Eaters and they COINCIDENTALLY ran into muggle cops who stopped them. That's why the first thing James said was ****"We'd have loved to stop for a chat, only we were trying****..." (to escape from Death Eaters)"

The only thing James and Sirius did was get cheeky with the cops. They weren't even nasty or mean. They seemed like they were trying to be clowns rather than nasty people. Fred and George would have cheeked back in the exact same way. Would you call Fred and George bad people?

The following are the only lines that James says in the prequel:

 ** **"We'd have loved to stop for a chat, only we were trying ..."****

We see this sarcasm/cheek with Harry all the time which he clearly inherited from his father. I see Harry being just as sarcastic if someone got in his way of escaping from Death Eaters.

 ** **"And what's nice about that one is, you can use it for a boy**** ** **or**** ** **a girl,"****

 ** **"Yeah, nice meeting you! And don't forget: Elvendork! It's unisex!"****

Which one of those lines was nasty or mean? Sure, James and Sirius were mischievous, but being mischievous doesn't mean they were bad people. And sure, James and Sirius were messing with the muggle cops, but they didn't have any malicious intent. They WEREN'T jeering either. They were just being clowns. Being clowns doesn't make them bad. The most you can say is that they were immature as they were after all still teenagers.

And as for them using magic in front of the muggle cops, they had to. Death Eaters were coming their way. What else do you expect them to do? Even if you say that they were a little immature and didn't handle the situation the most responsible way (though we can't say for sure since we don't know the full situation they were in), that doesn't mean James didn't change to be a better person from the James in Snape's Worst Memory. By change, Sirius and Remus meant that he became less arrogant and showy, not that he became the epitome of maturity. James may have remained mischievous, full-loving and carefree, but that doesn't mean he remained arrogant, conceited, mean and bullying. Even in this prequel story, you can see that he's significantly less arrogant, conceited and showy than he was in Snape's Worst Memory.


	6. Chapter 6

**I decided to dedicate this chapter to replying to comments. Some people don't really seem to understand what I mean. I'm NOT saying that James wasn't wrong or that he was a saint. And I'm NOT defending James' bullying which I agree was wrong. It's his character as a whole that I'm defending. I'm only defending wrongful and unfair accusations. (ie: calling him a bad person because he was a bully as a teen and insisting he remained a bully even if there's no proof of that is unfair).  
**

 **Suzululu4moe**  
But the author herself said on Pottermore (Marauder's map page) that James' priorities changed in the last few months of his 7th year to focus on the war and world beyond Hogwarts. My point was that Remus used a different term (curse), and if was lying he would more likely have continued using the same term (hex).

This is a work of fiction, so what the characters say are supposed to be canon unless proven otherwise. We don't have any proof that Remus lied. In their 7th year, the text says (through Remus) that it was a mutual hexing war in their 7th year and there's no proof otherwise.

Yes, James was wrong for levitating Snape, but you do realize that spell was created by Snape right? So it's alright for Snape to create such a spell, but James is a bad person for using it? Remus said that spell was commonly used during that period (at a time when he had no reason to make that up as he wasn't defending James then). And are you forgetting that Snape used Sectumsempra on James prior to James using Levicorpus on him? Sectumsempra could have killed or maimed James too (like if hit his neck). It almost killed Draco.

James was wrong, but he was said to grow out of it. It doesn't matter if it was his best friends who said it, this is not real life to be contemplating whether Sirius and Remus were lying. Like I said above, in a work of fiction, anything a character says is canon unless proven otherwise. The real question should be if the author intended that Sirius and Remus were lying. The only account of their 7th year that we have is Sirius and Remus' words, meaning the author used Sirius and Remus as her channel of information for what transpired in their 7th year.

So your saying that if someone is a bully, that person would always remain the same and would never improve? Didn't Draco and Dudley change and grow up to be good men who raised their kids to be better than themselves? Why wouldn't James have done the same? You're saying that people remain the same between 16 and 21? If the author intended for James to be a bad person, she would not have given her hero his patronus, she would not have made him die a sacrificial death, she would not have made him appear a wholesome spirit in DH and she would not have made his one of the souls that guided Harry in GOF and DH.

Plus, James is not a fully fleshed out character. We don't know exactly what transpired between him and Snape. We're only shown one bullying incident. We don't know how often he bullied Snape of if he ever did anything as bad as he did in Snape's Worst Memory. And we do know that Snape was antagonistic towards the Marauders too in that he constantly spied on them and tried to get them expelled/discredited. One such incident was when he tried to expose Remus as a werewolf. The relationship between James and Snape was more complex than a simple bully-victim relationship even if James was undeniably a jerk (as a teen).

 **ACE Albert**

I'm not arguing that James was perfect or a saint. Some Snape fans do make up excuses for his faults and paint him as a saint too (ie: they make excuses for how he treats his students). I agree that James was a flawed character and far from a saint. No one is asking people to sympathize with James, but he doesn't deserve to made out to be the devil because he made mistakes.

Some people only look at the bad in James, but refuse to acknowledge any good in him. They insist James only saved Snape to save his own skin or his friends, but there's no evidence for this. Dumbledore, Remus and Lily imply that he did it out of humanity because jerk as he was, he drew the line at killing. Plus, Dumbeldore said that James would have spared Peter who betrayed him, also implying that he had a high regard for a life (whatever his faults may have been) and that he did indeed save Snape out of that regard.

People don't just criticize James for the bullying, they make him an outright monster and make up accusations against him like calling him a potential wife-beater and potential cheater. That's what I'm defending. I'm not defending the bullying which I agree was wrong.

The fact still remains that we don't know the whole story between James and Snape. We only see one incident of him bullying Snape (which again, I agree was wrong of him). All 3 boys were immature 11 year olds in the train ride when they met. Everything that happened in between is left to speculation. We can only guess what happened in between. But people make up their own stories as to what happened in between. James was not a fully-fleshed out character. We will never know his character in full which is why I feel it's unfair to make him a bad person just because he had faults.

 **snapeforever**

Wow, you hate a fictional character with all your heart? Isn't that a little extreme? James isn't even a fully fleshed out character. You're basically hating a character that we don't even know in full. We only see one scene of him bullying Snape. We don't know everything else that went on between James and Snape. We don't know how often he bullied Snape or if he ever did anything as bad as in Snape's Worst Memory. We know that the relationship between James and Snape was more complex than a simple bully-victim relationship. Nothing is black and white in Harry Potter.

 **Guest**

Exactly. James having everything is why he behaved in such a way. How many rich privileged kids who have everything are actually nice? Such kids are usually not thought humility and humbleness. You say Snape's upbringing and environment to excuse his actions, but by that logic than doesn't James' upbringing and environment excuse his actions? He was raised to be spoilt. He was used to be adored since he was an infant. His parents clearly never thought him humility and humbleness, although they clearly thought him that Slytherins were evil and to be prejudiced against Slytherins. The adoration he received from his peers for his Quiditch skills and being "cool" didn't help level his head either. And of course being friends with "cool" Sirius Black who grew up in an abusive home and had only bad things to say about his Slytherin family would further contribute to his behavior. James is a product of his environment just like Snape.

Sorry, but you demonize James for bullying his peer as a teen, but justify Snape bullying his students as an adult authority figure over them? Teenagers are usually at their crappiest behavior. I'm sure if most people look back at their 16 year old selves, they would not exactly be proud of their 16 year old selves. How do you know James never regretted his actions? As a 30 something year old, people should be more mature and know better (in the case of Snape). You say that it's Harry's actions that make Snape act that way? How come no other teacher seemed to have the same problem with Harry (aside from Umbridge who was the worst)? And what about Snape bullying Neville?

You say James was wrong for bullying Snape. I agree. But then isn't Snape also wrong for bullying his students? If James' bullying was wrong, than so was Snape's bullying. He never loses an opportunity to humiliate Harry and Neville. He even humiliated Neville in front of another teacher's class and was Neville's worst fear. Snape never used magic on his students? He was an adult, you'd expect a 30 something year adult to be mature enough not to dangle kids up in the air. Moody was Death Eater in disguise and Umbridge was basically the worst teacher to grace the school.

I did say that it was a culture clash between James and Vernon. I said that Vernon got offended because he had never heard of Gringotts. But people always fault James for the mistakes he made and completely ignore any mistake that Vernon made. I'd excuse Vernon for laughing at James talking about his broom, but instead, he accused James of being an unemployed bum. I don't see what culture clash has to do with calling someone an unemployed bum. Yes, both James and Vernon made mistakes. But the point was that even if James made a mistake, he agreed to be the bigger man and apologize. Vernon on the other hand, refused to speak to him and described him an amateur magician within earshot.


	7. Chapter 7

****James wanted to abandon his wife and child to go on excursions with his cloak while in hiding.****

 ** **Part 4 of 4 of the "evidence" he didn't change argument****

This is based on Lily's letter. Lily didn't say that James expressed a desire to go an excursions with his cloak. She merely pointed out that he couldn't, based on his adventurous personality of loving excursions with the cloak. People forget that James' cloak was with Dumbledore because James let Dumbeldore keep it. Dumbeldore had no authority to keep James' family heirloom without James' permission. If James really wanted to go on excursions while in hiding, why would he have lent the cloak to Dumbledore?

As for James being frustrated of being cooped up in his house, who wouldn't be frustrated about being cooped up in a house for more than a year? Being cooped up would be even harder on adventurous and outgoing people like James. He chose to stay with Harry and Lily despite the danger on his life and despite it being against his nature to stay cooped up. I don't see why he should be demonized for being frustrated of being cooped up for more than a year. He's human after all.

Plus, Lily said that he TRIED NOT TO SHOW IT. To me, it seems like he was considerate enough of her feelings to try not to show his frustration. Lily said "she could tell", which to me, indicates that James never really outwardly showed any frustration, but that Lily knew him well enough to read him. To me, this seems like one of the things that makes Jily ideal (That she understands him and knows him well enough). Even in Snape's Worst Memory, Lily seemed like a good reader of James.

And again, just because James changed, it doesn't mean he has to be perfect saint without flaws. People just keep nitpicking on his faults as "evidence" that he didn't change and even exaggerate everything he does for this. Cases in point, the Vernon Dursley disagreement, the muggle cop incident and him being frustrated of being cooped up. All incident were blown up by some fans to demonize him.


	8. Chapter 8

**James would most probably end up cheating on Lily.**

I've seen fans who are so sure James would end up cheating and that James and Lily would not have a successful marriage. But this is not fair We never even see James and Lily as a couple for people to assume James and Lily would have a bad marriage in the first place. Yet, there are some people who claim to be sure of the marriage failing. Anyone can turn into a cheater. It's not fair to accuse James for being one when there's nothing to point to him being sexually immoral. The evidence they present for this is not necessarily true in my opinion.

Let me present you with their so called "evidence" that James would most probably cheat:

"Lily is harsh and critical. James is irresponsible, so James would eventually look for kindness somewhere else. James would not stop himself from cheating because he doesn't care about what Lily wants"

I'll argue why I don't think this evidence is necessarily true:

I've already covered James hexing Snape in his 7th year in chapter 2 and 3. First of all, we don't even know if Lily cared about James hexing Snape in his 7th year, or if he knew that she cared. Lily was no longer friends with Snape by then. Second of all, he was 17/18 then. It's not fair to use something he did at 17 as "evidence" of him being a potential cheater. Even their evidence itself doesn't hold water. What the hell does him hexing Snape have to do with his fidelity? If you want to deem James as a potential cheater, at least present proper evidence that involves him having a wondering eye. Just because he does one thing that Lily disapproves off, it doesn't mean he'd stoop to cheating. James hexing Snape behind Lily's back is NOT evidence that he would be sexually immoral. Both are completely unrelated.

As for Lily being harsh and critical, this is made up by Snape fans to justify his actions and free him off blame for the ending of his friendship with Lily. They unfairly shove all the blame on Lily by calling her harsh and critical. They even say that Snape dodged a bullet by not marrying Lily. Yeah right. It's Lily that dodged a bullet by not marrying Snape (unless you count her dying young after marrying James).

And another thing people forget is that wizarding culture if different. The wizarding culture is still stuck in traditional times with traditional values. They haven't even progressed to using pen and pencils for goodness sake. So divorce and infidelity would be quite rear in their culture. James is pureblood, so the only culture he knows is the traditional wizarding culture. In my opinion, this in itself should decrease his chances of engaging in sexual immorality. So it's just not fair to me. Just because he was a bully, it's not fair to accuse him of every sin in the book.


	9. Chapter 9

**James is a potential abuser/ wife-beater**

Another unfair accusation. Just because he was a bully, it's not fair to accuse him of every sin in the world. The people who argue with this state evidence that's not necessarily true in my opinion.

Let me present you with their so called "evidence"

 **Don't make me hex you Evans.**

They say this is classic abusers argument. But look at the context in which James uttered that line. Lily drew out her and first before James said that. Some fans say that he meant that if he abuses her, it's her fault. But this is not necessarily the case. This interpretation would hold water if he threatened to hex her for defending Snape, but that was NOT the case. He threatened to hex her after she threatened to hex him.

Like I said above, Lily drew out her wand first. He meant that if she hexed him, he would hex her back. To me, this is more of him saying that he would defend himself if she hexes him. I don't see how it means "If I abuse you, it's your fault" when she drew her wand out first. And hexing doesn't mean abusing. People forget the difference between the magic world and muggle world. "Don't make me hex you" DOES NOT mean "Don't make me hit you," Hexing is a wide term that doesn't necessarily involve abuse. People hex each other all the time in the wizarding world.

Is a guy not allowed to hex a girl who hexes him simply because she's a girl? Isn't' it sexist to say so? If that's your argument, why not argue that Harry tried to abuse Bellatrix when he used Crucio on her (forget that she had just killed his godfather when he did it)? In the wizarding world, boys and girls are equally capable in the magic department. James did not have an advantage against Lily if they dueled. They were both capable wizards in the same academic year.

Plus, the main point to consider is that he didn't hex her. Even after she said that she'd rather go out with a giant squid which would most certainly have been humiliating for James who liked maintaining his bravado in front of a crowd, he didn't hex her at all. He actually listened to her and put Snape down. Plus, James was 16 during this scene. Plus, it's not fair to use something he said and did at 16 as "evidence" he would turn into a domestic abuser.

Another argument is that he abused Snape. But since when does being a bully as a teen necessarily mean that you'd turn out to be a wife-beater. Again, people are going by what he did as a teen to say that he would turn into a wife-beater. This is just unfair. Being a bully as a teen does not increase a person's chance of becoming a domestic abuser. It's funny that the same people who argue James would be a potential domestic abuser because he was a bully, don't argue that Sirius and Draco are potential domestic abusers since they were bullies as teens too. Snape was cruel to his students and a bully as an adult and he joined the biggest bullies at one point (Voldy and gang), but noone calls him a potential abuser.


	10. Chapter 10

**He stalked Snape with the Marauders Map and Invisibility Cloak to attack him**

I don't even have to rant long about this stupid argument. There is absolutely no proof, I repeat, there is absolutely no proof to this ridiculous claim.

Don't give me the whole "Of course they did" "You really don't think they would use it?" "Bullies usually would use those items against their victims," All these only point to speculation and not facts. I don't care what typical bullies usually would do. That doesn't mean James did it. Not every bully is the same.

There is NO PROOF at all that he used the map and cloak against Snape. They were said to create the map to help them sneak out for their monthly adventures. There's no mention at all of them using it for Snape hunting. Until you provide me with solid proof that they used the map against Snape, this argument is invalid and a false accusation.


	11. Chapter 11

**There's no evidence that he changed/ people don't change that quickly/ there's no evidence that he's a good person**

Ok, I've had some people argue with me that there's no evidence James changed other than his best friend's words. Well, I ask you, what evidence is there that James didn't change? I've already covered the three common arguments against James changing in previous chapters. Sure, some things are open to interpretation, but why interpret things the negative way? Why not give him the benefit of the doubt.

The canon text mentions that James changed through Sirius and Remus' account. This is not real life. This is fiction. James is what J.K. Rowling makes him to be. Hence, the only canon things about him is what JKR herself penned down or said. The real question is whether JKR intended that James changed and whether JKR intended that Sirius and Remus were telling the truth.

The only account JKR provided for what happened in James' seventh year and how James and Lily got together is Sirius and Remus' words. She never provided any alternative account to counter Sirius and Remus' words. If she meant that they were lying, she would have made it blatantly clear and she would have shown proof of them lying. What evidence is there that they were lying other than they were James' best friends? Furthermore, his creator also said on Pottermore that he changed his priorities in the final few months of his Hogwarts days to focus on the war and a world beyond Hogwarts.

Moreover, Lily was a no-nonsense person who chewed James out for his bullying, told Snape off for his bad company and ended her friendship with Snape because she disapproved of his actions. Why would she get with James if he still remained the arrogant toerag she disapproved of in his fifth year? If you say James was pretending, I covered that in chapter 1 and 2. Plus, Lily is somewhat JKR's Golden Girl. Would she pair her golden girl with someone who remained a jerk?

Some people say that it's impossible that James changed in a short period. Really? People can change in a heartbeat if the situation arises that makes them immediately see the light. Didn't Dudley and Draco change within a year or two? Why is it impossible for someone to change in months or a year? No one said he immediately changed in one day. His change could have been gradual, throughout his sixth year.

Even if you think James' change is illogical, he's not a real person. He's a fictional character. Magic and Hogwarts are not real but they're canon in the HP universe aren't they? If I write about a character that illogically changes in a heartbeat, it's still canon as I created that character and whatever illogical thing I portray about that character is canon in my fictional universe.

I've had a few people argue with me that there's no evidence that he's a good person. Sigh… Really? Gee, what about him joining the right side from the start and choosing to fight evil instead of craving power by joining Voldemort. Forget Voldemort, but he could have remained neutral like the Weasleys and chose to become a famous Quidditch player or something. In other words, he chose to fight evil instead of power and fame. Doesn't this mean something? Bad people usually crave power, position and/or wealth and prioritize goals involving those. James was never said to crave wealth. He clearly didn't crave power and position. Otherwise, he would have joined Voldy. Oh, and he wouldn't have married a muggle-born and solidified his blood-traitor status.

Not enough? How about him choosing to remain friends with a werewolf? Werewolves were shunned by even good people (exp: Tonk's parents, Ron's reaction to werewolf Remus in POA). Or what about him going into hiding with his family instead of bolting on them to save his own skin when Voldy targeted Harry. Many guys walk out on their families simply because they can't handle the responsibility. Or what about him putting both his wife and son's lives before his own when Voldy attacked them. All these put together isn't enough to make him a good person? He's barely even a character, so of course the author doesn't show much about him.

The people who make this argument unfairly and conveniently downplay or dismiss anything good about James. I feel like these people are just nitpicking for sake of nitpicking since James is barely even a character. We don't know him in full, which makes their harsh judgment unfair. What evidence is there that he's not a good person? That he was a bully as teen? Being a bully as teen doesn't necessarily make someone a bad person. He was said to have changed. Not to mention, even when he was a bully, he had his good points and softer side.

Sure, you might be able interpret things to make him bad (if you twist certain things), but why must you interpret things to see the worst in him (especially if it involves twisting things)? What happened to seeing the best in people? Do you really think the author meant for the father of her hero to be bad? If JKR meant James to be bad, would she have given him a sacrificial death where he died for his family and made him one of the souls that guided Harry in GOF and DH? More importantly, if she wrote him to be bad, would she have given her hero his stag patronus? We're talking about Rowling who changed Hermione's middle name because she didn't want her to have the same middle name as Umbridge. She would not have represented Harry with the same animal as James if she wrote him to be bad.


	12. Chapter 12

**I can interpret James as being bad and still remain canon compliant**

I've had people tell me that you can interpret things both ways in which James changed and didn't change and still remain canon compliant. I've also had people tell me that you can interpret things where James is bad or good and still remain canon compliant. Fair enough. But even if I accept this argument, I ask you why do you have to interpret things the negative way? When his character can be interpreted the positive way, why choose to interpret him the negative way? Like I've said in previous chapters, what happened to seeing the best in people? Why see the worst in people? If interpreting things the positive way is still canon compliant, why not choose that interpretation?

Plus, considering James is a character out of JKR's head, it's also a question of whether or not she intended that he changed or that he's good. Think about this: JKR reformed Harry's bullies, Dudley and Draco to be good people as adults. Why on earth would she intend Harry's own father to be someone who didn't reform when she intended his bullies to reform? Both Dudley and Draco also reformed at 17, the same age that James was said to have reformed.

I've even had people tell me, I'm allowed to accuse James of so and so because there's no evidence that he didn't do so and so. Sorry, but that's not fair. When you accuse someone of something, there has to be evidence. It's the accuser that has to provide evidence. No evidence means no evidence. There's no evidence that Voldemort didn't rape anyone, but is it ok for me to accuse Voldy of raping someone just because he's evil and there's no evidence he didn't rape anyone? Is it fair for me to accuse Snape of killing people as a Death Eater, because there's no proper evidence that he never killed as a DE? Wouldn't you expect me to provide evidence of Snape killing someone if I accused him of that? Or would you be accept my lack of evidence that he didn't as evidence?

 **Guys, just one thing: Many of you comment without an account, but I can't reply you if you do. Please try to get an account before commenting. It's free. You're still welcome to comment without an account, but it's preferable if you at least try to get an account.**


	13. Chapter 13

**Rowling parallels James Potter with Dudley Dursley and Dumbledore compares James Potter to Draco Malfoy**

First, let me start by saying NOT ALL BULLIES ARE THE SAME.

Yes, James, Dudley and Draco were all spoilt only sons and bullies. But that's as far as their similarities go.

Let me present you with "evidence" that Rowling parallels James with Dudley. I've even seen someone so determined that Rowling intends James and Dudley to be a set.

 **Evidence**

James had a rat-like friend, Peter. Dudley had a rat-like friend, Piers in the Philosopher's Stone.

James had a best friend represented by a dog (Sirius) just like Harry also had a best friend represented by a dog (Ron). Ron's patronus is a dog just like Sirius' animagus/ patronus (albeit a different breed). James' friendship with his best friend Sirius more accurately parallels Harry's friendship with Ron. Furthermore, James and Harry are both represented by stags. So, by the logic of these select few people, James is also paralleled with Harry. After all, James is the only other character aside from Harry that was said to risk his life to save his arch-nemesis which is a fitting parallel considering James is Harry's father.

It's funny that some Snape fans who love pointing out this parallel between James and Dudley ignore the parallels between Snape and Voldemort. Voldemort and Snape both had muggle fathers, pureblood mothers, daddy issues, looked down on muggles due to their muggle fathers, had maternal families that were prejudiced, had bad childhoods, were Slytherins and craved power. Compared to Voldemort, Dudley looks like a saint. (But of course, Snape had parallels with other characters too).

Even if I accept this parallel, Rowling parallels many characters with many characters. When James has parallels with quite a few characters from Harry, Ron, the Weasley twins, Draco and even McGonagall, having a parallel with Dudley doesn't make him the Dudley of his generation.

Now to Draco. Yes, James has a few similarities with Draco, but he has quite a few stark contrasts with Draco as well (which I will cover next chapter). I've had a very select few people insist that Dumbledore compared James to Draco. Dumbledore did no such thing.

Here's what Dumbledore said: "Your father and Professor Snape were rivals in school not unlike Mr. Malfoy and yourself,"

This is a general statement. They derive this conclusion because James was a bully, but Dumbledore is not necessarily putting James and Snape in either of Harry and Draco's roles. Rowling's characters are supposed to be complex. Hence the comparison between Harry/ Draco and James/Snape is also supposed to be more complex than an outright parallel. Both James and Snape are complex combinations of Harry and Draco.

Another thing to remember is that James was close to Dumbledore, Dumbledore made him Headboy, and Dumbledore recruited him in the Order. Draco never had a good relationship with Dumbledore. Hence, it's unlikely Dumbledore would compare James to Draco. Plus, McGonagall compared James and Sirius to the Weasley twins. Harry compared him to Ron (when he saw Ron messing his hair when girls passed by at the end of OOTP). Sirius and Remus compared him to Harry (several times).

To me it seems like James and Snape are meant to be Harry and Draco with their backgrounds switched. James is Harry with Draco Malfoy's background. Snape is Draco with Harry's background. Just imagine Harry growing up as the rich, spoilt only son, and Draco growing up in a poor, abusive home. Wouldn't we get James and Snape? Or imagine James growing up as a poor kid in an abusive home and Snape growing up as the rich spoilt, only son. Wouldn't we get Harry and Draco?

Does James have parallels with Dudley and Draco? Perhaps, but he has parallels with quite a few other characters too. Hence, it's inaccurate for you to speak as if Draco and Dudley are the only character he's compared to just to bolster your narrative of what a horrible human being he is. If we really look at it, he's more like Harry and Ron with a different background or more like the Weasley twins compared to Dudley or Draco. The Weasley twins are kind of bullies in their own right too. Even Harry said that he sees the Weasley twins dangling someone like Draco Malfoy up in the air. Either way, Draco and Dudley grew up to be good people anyways.


	14. Chapter 14

**Another replying to guest reviews chapter. Sorry about that!**

 **Misaki** Sexual harassment? Are you referring to him removing Snape's pants? If so, the canon text doesn't actually show him removing Snape's pants. Canon text only shows him saying "Who wants me to remove Snivelly's pants?" Whether he did it or not is up for debate. It could have been an empty threat. Someone could have stopped him. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Following the policy of seeing the best in people, I prefer interpreting it as he didn't actually do it since it still complies with canon.

If you're referring to him dangling Snape in the air, yes he was a jerk. But if you call that sexual harassment, then you'll have to call Snape, Harry and various people at Hogwarts sexual harassers too. Why? Because Snape created that spell. It's unlikely that he would create a spell and not use it at all. Even if he didn't use it, then the fact that Snape created such a spell makes him an accessory to sexual harassment (if the spell is sexual harassment). Remus said in the Half Blood Prince that the spell was vogue and everyone was dangling everyone up in the air in school during the period that James used that spell on Snape. So I suppose many people in their school were sexual harassers? Remus had no reason to make this up as he wasn't even defending James when he said it. Harry used that spell on Ron as a retaliation to Ron punching him. Even James used that spell as a retaliation to Snape using Sectumsempra on him. I'm not saying that James was right. He was wrong and a jerk for what he did in Snape's Worst Memory, but the fact that Snape created that spell and the fact that the spell was popular in use during the period have to be taken into consideration as well.

I was talking about bullying in general, not bullies who cause their victims to commit suicide. In general, killing is more cruel than bullying but of course it's not the same for each and every case of bullying and killing. Not all bullies are the same. James isn't one of those bullies who made his victims commit suicide. We only see one incident of his bullying. We don't know how often or to what extent his other bullying incidents were. We only have vague facts that can interpreted in various ways. The fact that the incident in Snape's Worst Memory happens right after the werewolf incident, and the fact that they just had a werewolf question in their exam does indicate that Snape trying to out Remus as a werewolf played a factor in James and Sirius's malice in Snape's Worst Memory. It's possible that they were more vicious that usual towards Snape in that particular incident because he had just tried to out Remus. I'm not saying it makes what they did right, but that it's possible they weren't as vicious until Snape tried to out Remus.

Plus, this is in the Wizarding world. The Wizarding is more dangerous and cruel than the muggle world. Kids are shown hexing people who annoy them all the time. Ginny bat-bogey hexes people who annoy her. Harry hexed Crabbe and Goyle for fun in Half Blood Prince. Ron tried to get Draco to cough out slugs. Fred and George shoved Montague in the vanishing cabinet which left him with brain damage and could have killed him. Hermione jinxed her sign-up sheet to leave a cruel pimple scar on Marietta's face. This is a world where they make kids learn dangerous creatures and spells and a world where it was considered okay to keep a large three headed dog in a school. So you have to lower the standards at least a little bit from the muggle world standards when judging James since the aforementioned is the environment he grew up in. Again, I'm not saying that he was right. Even by wizarding standards, he was above the line of acceptable behavior, but if measured by wizarding stadards, what he did is not as bad as you paint it (though it was still bad).

He got cold feet? Where in the text does it state that he was in the werewolf prank and got cold feet? Canon text states that Sirius and only Sirius played the prank and James saved him. Remus, Dumbledore and Lily all present it as a noble deed. The only counter comes from Snape who says James only saved him to save his own skin and his friends. Where does it state that James turned into a stag when he saved Snape? As far the canon text goes, he saved Snape in his human form. Remus says that he risked his life to save Snape. There's no reason for Remus to add the "at great risk of his life" part. A simple "your father pulled Snape out of there" would have sufficed to bring James up to Harry.

As far as the text states, James was not an accessory to Sirius' attempt murder as he was not involved in that prank. Sirius and Remus said that James found out what Sirius did and pulled Snape out of there. Just because he was a big enough jerk to bully Snape and dangle him up in the air, it doesn't mean he was cruel enough to kill him. It's up for debate whether or not he saved Snape out of humanity or for Remus, but either way, he was not involved in the prank. I personally choose to believe that he indeed saved Snape out of humanity since it still complies with canon. I also believe that's the author's intent. The only other person who risked his life to save his arch-nemesis out of humanity on HP is Harry (who saved Draco), so it's fitting that the author meant to parallel this with Harry's own father risking his life to save his own arch-nemesis out of humanity.

Again, I'm in no way denying that he was wrong. He was jerk. But he was said to have changed. He was said to have deflated his head and stopped hexing people for fun. If the author reformed Dudley and Draco, I'm pretty sure she intends that Harry's own father reformed. But this is just my opinion. I'm sorry if I offended you or if you don't agree with my viewpoint.


	15. Chapter 15

**Sorry, but another guest review reply.**

 **Misaki** But I'm not saying that James was right. I did agree that he was a jerk and he was wrong. Yes, he was still wrong for using the spell even if Snape invented it. I'm not saying that it's Snape's fault James used it on him. I meant that Snape is not free of fault for inventing such a spell. Snape invented a spell to expose people upside down. Why do you think Snape invented such a spell? Wasn't that also wrong?

I wasn't referring to the first time Harry used it on Ron. I was referring to the second time he used it. Ron punched him under the influence of a love potion and Harry retaliated by dangling him in the air (knowing what the spell did). I agree that James was much more wrong in his use of the spell compared to Harry. You keep saying that it was sexual harassment, but we don't know for sure if he actually stripped Snape or not. As for exposing his undies, that is what the spell spell exposes people in their undies. If that's sexual harassment, that would mean that Snape himself has sexually harassed people with that spell or at the very least passed it on to his Death Eater friends to sexually harass people.

As for why there wasn't any reports, the fact that such a spell was popular shows just how much of dystopian world the wizarding world is. This is a school that sends children in the Forbidden Forest for punishment. Both Sirius and Harry got away with just detention for almost killing a classmate (though Harry's incident was much more justifiable and he didn't intend to kill Draco). The school continued running after 3 students were attacked by the basilisk. Hence, I don't think the school takes much seriously. I find it a fault with the world and the school's system as a whole. Hogwarts seems like a barbaric place to study in. The school and even the students seem to have a different idea of what's dangerous. But we don't know for sure if there weren't any reports about the spell's use though.

Again, I'm not saying that James was right. What he did was very wrong. But he was said to have changed. He was said to have deflated his head and stopped hexing people for fun. That's why I personally forgive him as everyone makes mistakes and sometimes grave mistakes like James did. I believe he did change. If Sirius who was unhinged from Azkaban could admit he was an arrogant berk, I'm sure James by the time of death would have admitted the same. While what he did in Snape's Worst Memory was admittedly disturbing, I view his character as a whole instead of focusing on that one incident. I'm sorry if you don't agree with me but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not condoning or defending bullying. I'm defending James' character as a whole, not his bullying.


	16. Chapter 16

**Sin:** Thank you for saying that I'm doing this in a politically correct way. I'm not making excuses for James Potter. Like I've said in previous chapters, I agree that he a jerk as a teen and he was wrong. I'm just presenting him in a more positive light that's still canon compliant. I'm not saying that all arguments are stupid. But some are stupid and have no canon base. For example, people who say that James hexed or pranked muggle cops in the prequel. That's not true at all if you read the actual scene.

The rest I call unfair. Even if an argument is compliant with canon if you twist things, it's still unfair if there's no actual evidence for it. Accusing someone of something simply because there's no proof that person didn't do it IS unfair to me. My defense is presenting why these arguments are not necessarily true, not that they can't be true.

When a prosecutor brings a defendant to court, it's the prosecutor who needs to present evidence. The defendant is only required to defend any evidence presented by the prosecutor. If the prosecutor fails to present proper evidence other than "There's no evidence the defendant didn't do it" (or other weak evidence), the defendant walks free of the prosecutor's accusation. Case in point: If someone accuses James of stalking Snape with his map but can provide no evidence other than "There's no evidence James didn't use the map to stalk Snape", James walks free of that accusation. Sorry if you don't agree with my viewpoint.

 **Guest** Thank youJ True, many character characters are bashed unnecessarily. I specifically chose James because at least with the other characters, they're fully fleshed out characters and people usually bash them with a fair amount of information. We have very little information on James, so most bashing on him is based on speculation (ie; Sirius and Remus lied that he changed, etc.)

 **My next accusation:**

 **He stole Lily from Snape**

Lily is perfectly capable of making her own choices. James didn't force himself on her or force her to leave Snape. Lily is not property to be stolen. It's not like James schemed and manipulated the breaking of their relationship so that he could swoop in and have Lily for himself either. Lily didn't leave Snape for James either. James and Lily only began dating more than a year after Snape's friendship with Lily ended.

Okay, so some blame James because Snape called Lily a mudblood as a result of his bullying. But look at the bigger picture. James didn't make Snape call Lily a mudblood. From James' reaction, he didn't expect it either. Sure, it's partially understandable for Snape to let that word slip as he was humiliated. But he would not have uttered that word even in anger and humiliation if it didn't come from within. If Harry was being humiliated, I don't see him lashing out and calling Hermione a mudblood even if he does lash out at her.

Plus, Snape and Lily were drifting apart even before the incident. Lily didn't just break off her friendship with Snape because of that one word. She was gradually disillusioned by Snape as can be seen in their conversation prior to the bullying incident. Even if Snape didn't utter that word, eventually he would have had to make a choice between the dark side and her, and this would ultimately have ended their friendship. Even J.K. Rowling says that his growing association with Dark side is what ended their relationship.


	17. Chapter 17

**Rowling parallels James Potter with Dudley Dursley and Dumbledore compares James Potter to Draco Malfoy**

First, let me start by saying NOT ALL BULLIES ARE THE SAME.

Yes, James, Dudley and Draco were all spoilt only sons and bullies. But that's as far as their similarities go.

Let me present you with "evidence" that Rowling parallels James with Dudley. I've even seen someone so determined that Rowling intends James and Dudley to be a set.

 **Evidence**

James had a rat-like friend, Peter. Dudley had a rat-like friend, Piers in the Philosopher's Stone.

James had a best friend represented by a dog (Sirius) just like Harry also had a best friend represented by a dog (Ron). Ron's patronus is a dog just like Sirius' animagus/ patronus (albeit a different breed). James' friendship with his best friend Sirius more accurately parallels Harry's friendship with Ron. Furthermore, James and Harry are both represented by stags. So, by the logic of these select few people, James is also paralleled with Harry. After all, James is the only other character aside from Harry that was said to risk his life to save his arch-nemesis which is a fitting parallel considering James is Harry's father.

It's funny that some Snape fans who love pointing out this parallel between James and Dudley ignore the parallels between Snape and Voldemort. Voldemort and Snape both had muggle fathers, pureblood mothers, daddy issues, looked down on muggles due to their muggle fathers, had maternal families that were prejudiced, had bad childhoods, were Slytherins and craved power. Compared to Voldemort, Dudley looks like a saint. (But of course, Snape had parallels with other characters too).

Even if I accept this parallel, Rowling parallels many characters with many characters. When James has parallels with quite a few characters from Harry, Ron, the Weasley twins, Draco and even McGonagall, having a parallel with Dudley doesn't make him the Dudley of his generation.

Now to Draco. Yes, James has a few similarities with Draco, but he has quite a few stark contrasts with Draco as well (which I will cover next chapter). I've had a very select few people insist that Dumbledore compared James to Draco. Dumbledore did no such thing.

Here's what Dumbledore said: "Your father and Professor Snape were rivals in school not unlike Mr. Malfoy and yourself,"

This is a general statement. They derive this conclusion because James was a bully, but Dumbledore is not necessarily putting James and Snape in either of Harry and Draco's roles. Rowling's characters are supposed to be complex. Hence the comparison between Harry/ Draco and James/Snape is also supposed to be more complex than an outright parallel. Both James and Snape are complex combinations of Harry and Draco.

Another thing to remember is that James was close to Dumbledore, Dumbledore made him Headboy, and Dumbledore recruited him in the Order. Draco never had a good relationship with Dumbledore. Hence, it's unlikely Dumbledore would compare James to Draco. Plus, McGonagall compared James and Sirius to the Weasley twins. Harry compared him to Ron (when he saw Ron messing his hair when girls passed by at the end of OOTP). Sirius and Remus compared him to Harry (several times).

To me it seems like James and Snape are meant to be Harry and Draco with their backgrounds switched. James is Harry with Draco Malfoy's background. Snape is Draco with Harry's background. Just imagine Harry growing up as the rich, spoilt only son, and Draco growing up in a poor, abusive home. Wouldn't we get James and Snape? Or imagine James growing up as a poor kid in an abusive home and Snape growing up as the rich spoilt, only son. Wouldn't we get Harry and Draco?

Does James have parallels with Dudley and Draco? Perhaps, but he has parallels with quite a few other characters too. Hence, it's inaccurate for you to speak as if Draco and Dudley are the only character he's compared to just to bolster your narrative of what a horrible human being he is. If we really look at it, he's more like Harry and Ron with a different background or more like the Weasley twins compared to Dudley or Draco. The Weasley twins are kind of bullies in their own right too. Even Harry said that he sees the Weasley twins dangling someone like Draco Malfoy up in the air. Either way, Draco and Dudley grew up to be good people anyways.


	18. Chapter 18

**Sorry, more guest reviews. Guys, please don't make the same arguments.**

 **Malignancy** I apologize that I have offended you. But I stated in the first chapter that these arguments are just my opinion. Perhaps I used the wrong title.

Didn't you read my reply to Sin in chapter 16. Yes, some of these arguments are canon compliant. I'm not calling those stupid. I lump those with unfair. In my opinion, seeing the worst in people is unfair. Accusing James of something just because it complies with canon is still not fair (in my opinion). That's why I'm presenting why these arguments are not necessarily true, NOT that they can't be true. Some people have argued with me that these arguments are DEFINITELY true. That's why I'm presenting why it's NOT NECESSARILY true, NOT that they're definitely not true.

It's more of showing a more positive side with the policy of seeing the best in people. I'm saying that even if these arguments can be true, why see the worst in him. Why not take the optimistic approach if the more positive interpretation is still canon compliant. That's my point. I'm not dissing anyone's headcanon. I'm just trying to present how a more positive interpretation of James (as opposed to these arguments) that's still canon compliant.

The argument you made about James pretending to change to get Lily, I've already covered it in chapter 1. If he was pretending, he would have gotten tired and dumped Lily months into their relationship. I'm not presenting my headcanons as canon. I'm arguing why these accusations are not NECESSARILY true (for those who argue they're definitely true). You accused me of presenting my headcanon as canon, but aren't you also kind of presenting your headcanon that he only changed to get a date with Lily and that he didn't want to miss his glory days as canon?

Even if for arguments sake, James not changing is canon compliant, why see the worst in him when him changing is also canon compliant. If both interpretations are canon, why choose the negative one that involves seeing the worst in people. Why not choose the positive one that involves seeing the best in people? Why be pessimistic? That's what I'm saying. Sorry, but I've already mentioned this various times.

Some of these arguments, I genuinely argue why they can't be true. My arguments are a mixture of both. Not all the arguments are canon-compliant. Some I actually debunk with real evidence. Sometimes, the evidence I present is more of an evidence of appealing to the logic of the reader. With the arguments that are canon-compliant, I present why they're not necessarily true and why a more positive interpretation is still canon.

Plus, James changing is actually stated on text (via Sirius and Remus' words), while James NOT changing is not on stated text. Hence, the benefit of textual evidence. Those who argue he changed just have to take the text as it is and Sirius and Remus' words as it is. Those who argue he didn't change have to twist everything Sirius and Remus said as lies. Not only that, they have to make up twists for the good he did.

I didn't claim to know what JKR thinks. Sorry if I gave that impression. I meant that James is from her head, so if she meant that he changed. You said that I don't know what she really has in mind for him. Yes, I don't know. But I was asking (NOT claiming to know) that if she meant for James not to have changed, why did she not show it and make it clear? If she reformed Harry's bullies, Draco and Dudley, why would she not reform Harry's own father? And if she intends James not to have changed, what purpose to the plot does it serve, considering he's dead throughout? If James is a devil in disguise, why would Rowling make him appear as a good spirit in GOF and DH? And why would she not show it?

As far as Rowling put on her text, she made Sirius and Remus say that he changed. So if she imagined James to not really have changed and still be a jerk, why not put it on text? Did she expect readers to somehow figure out her "twist" that James is a twisted person who put on a face all along without any evidence? If so, she failed, because many readers believe Sirius and Remus' words that he changed.

The JKR arguments are more of me appealing to the logic of readers, not claiming that I know what JKR thinks. I was posing open questions to the readers. I was opening those questions to readers to answer (ie: as to why JKR would not make it clear if James didn't change). If readers have good answers to those questions, I welcome them to debate with me.

I'm not glossing over his faults. I did say that he was wrong and a jerk at 16. I made it clear in the first chapter that I'm not trying to paint him as a saint. I'm mostly refuting people who paint him as a devil. Whatever he may have been, he was not a devil with no good in him like some people say. I'm sorry if you felt that I was glossing over his faults.. But I felt this was not an analysis of him for me to equally speak of his faults. This is me refuting arguments against him as to why they're not NECESSARILY true. Hence, refuting those arguments were my focus, not his faults.

These arguments are presented in opinion form. I'm not forcing everyone to agree with me. I'm not forcing my opinions as canon. I'm sorry if I offended you. I hope you understand what I'm saying. Perhaps I should have used a different title for this. Again, I'm sorry if I said anything wrong. I welcome people to debate my opinions, but please don't put me down for them.

 **Misaki** ThanksJ But your link doesn't work.

 **Guest** But I didn't deny he was a bully. A bully's a bully? Aren't you judging the characters as one-dimensional? There's more to his character than just bullying. If a bully's nothing but a bully, then aren't Draco, Sirius and Snape also nothing but bullies?

 **I am nanettex** ThanksJ I agree with you too.


	19. Chapter 19

**There's no proof that James isn't so and so, so I'm allowed to say those things about him**

Sorry, but many people have been making this argument with me, that some of these arguments can be true even if there's no evidence for it because there's no evidence against it. But that doesn't make it fair. Just because he was a jerk and a bully in school, it doesn't make it fair to lump every sin in the world from spousal abuse to rape to sexual immorality to pedophilia on him by claiming there's no evidence he wasn't those things. The only thing people haven't accused him of is being a serial killer and a rapist.

No wait, apparently he used a love potion on Lily so you can add rape to his list of things he's been accused of. And I've even had someone say that if he was a teacher like Snape, he would use his looks and charm to shag his 16 and 17 year students, so statutory rape and pedophilia are also things he had been accused of. If people accuse him of things in the event that he didn't change, should their accusations at least pertain to his 16 year old character? James had his good points even as a 16 year old asshole.

Would you think it's fair if someone accused a character you liked of something, but instead of providing evidence, their evidence is that there's no evidence he or she didn't do the thing they accused him off? Or would you think it's fair if someone accused you of something by claiming there's no evidence you didn't do it as "evidence". Sorry if you don't agree with me, but in my opinion, it's the accuser who has to provide evidence for their accusation.

And I've already mentioned that in the case of an argument being possible, I'm covering why that argument is not NECESARRILY true, not why it's definitely not true.

Yes, it's true, that if there's no evidence, your accusation has a possibility of being true. But any argument you make about him that's not stated on the canon text, but complies with canon is a headcanon. If you bash James for something that's not stated on text, but something that's your headcanon, then you're not bashing canon James that was penned down on the books, you're bashing him for something you think he did.

For example: **If you bash James saying "James is such a jerk, he bullied Snape.**

That's true. That's canon. That's actually stated on text. That's fair.

For example: **If you bash James saying "James is such a jerk, he only joined the Order to attack people in a more legal way,"**

That's your headcanon. This is not on the text. Whether or not it could be true is besides the point. I mean that if you bash James for something you think he might have done rather than something he clear-cut did, that's not fair on the basis that your accusation might not be true (even if there is a possibility). Sorry if you guys don't agree with me, but I personally believe in the benefit of the doubt.

Plus, if the author intended for James to have done something, she would have stated it on text. For example, does the author just expect all readers to twist that James joined the Order to attack people in a more legal way? And to be clear, this is NOT me claiming to know what the author thinks. I'm saying that if the author intended that he only joined the Order to attack people, it would be weird cause she never penned that down and it would be weird if she expected all readers to twist that conclusion.

The same goes for him stalking Snape with the map and cloak. I ask you, if the author intended for him to have used the map and cloak on Snape, why has she never mentioned it at all? Even her post canon article about the Marauder's map and cloak mentions nothing about James using the map and cloak to stalk Snape. She has a whole article on Pottermore about Marauder's map and how they used it, but no mention of them using it on Snape.

That being said, there are also levels to the plausibility of a headcanon. By levels of plausibility I mean determining how logical or possible is a headcanon based on logical deduction. For instance, in my opinion, James and Marauders using the map to occasionally prank Snape is a more plausible headcanon than him being some master manipulator who fooled Lily and even managed to fool Dumbledore about being good (something that even Tom Riddle didn't manage to do) even if there's no hard evidence for or against both.

Another example is if you imagine Arthur Weasley being a bad boy romeo during his school days. How plausible is that based on his adult character? There's no evidence against it, but based on the logical deduction of his adult character, how plausible is it?

People say that James changing is equally headcanon as James not changing, so both arguments are valid. Now, I'm going to get into my understanding of headcanon. Again, this is my opinion. You may agree with me or you may not agree with me.

 **Headcanon** : My understanding of a headcanon is something that's not stated in the source material that fans come up with but it still complies with canon and doesn't go against the canon text.

James changing is actually stated on text. It doesn't matter if it's through his best friends words. It's still penned down on text that he changed. Hence, to me it's not a headcanon. It's not something fans made up. It's something that's actually stated on text via his best friends.

If you twist that James didn't change and that Sirius and Remus lied, that's a headcanon. In my opinion, it becomes a theory. A theory is when people come up with a different reality by twisting what's in canon, but a reality that still complies with canon material. A theory can be true and can be false. A theory remains plausible as long as there's nothing concrete to debunk it. But like I mentioned above, not every theory is realistic based on logical deduction and not every theory is equally plausible.

Okay for arguments sake, lets say both realities that James changed and didn't change are both of equal weightage. And lets say both are equally headcanons. In the next chapter, I'm going to cover why I personally believe James changing makes more sense than him not changing. But again, that would be my personal opinion. I'm not presenting my arguments as the ultimate canon. I made it clear in chapter 1 that these arguments are based on my opinions.


	20. Chapter 20

**Misaki: Thanks! It's nice debating with someone who doesn't put me down for my opinion. Below I wrote why I personally think that James did improve and was not fooling Lily. I hope you don't mind being patient enough to read and tell me what you think.**

 **Guest: That's precisely my point. James not changing contributes nothing to the plot, so I don't get why the author would intend for him to not have changed. I didn't say he became a paragon of virtue. I meant that's it's not unbelievable for him to have improved to at least an extent.**

Here's why I personally believe that James changing makes more sense and why him fooling Lily and joining the Order for less than noble reasons doesn't make much sense to me (This is my opinion/ interpretation). Sorry for the long chapter, but I'm not forcing anyone to agree with my opinion:

 **1.)** **Sirius and Remus said it on text and there's nothing to disprove their words**

 **2.)** **Rowling made this statement on Pottermore**

 **-** _ **In any case, their (Marauders) priorities changed in their final months at school, becoming far more serious and focused on the world beyond Hogwarts, where Lord Voldemort was successfully rising to power.** _

_( writing-by-jk-rowling/the-marauders-map) - writing-by-jk-rowling/the-marauders-map  
_

\- Considering Rowling herself said that he became far more serious and changed his priorities to focus on the war, it seems unlikely to me that she intends him to have joined the Order for less than noble reasons.

\- To me, if Rowling intended that he didn't change, I don't see why she would write the above statement.

 **3.)** **I don't take Sirius for a liar**

\- Sirius had his faults, but he was usually honest

\- Sirius is the one adult who treated Harry like an adult and wanted him to know the hard truth

\- By this, I'm referring to the beginning of the Order of the Phoenix. Sirius argued with Molly because he wanted Harry to know the truth about the prophecy and all that the Order members. The rest of the adults felt Harry was too young to handle the truth, but not Sirius.

\- Without bothering how it would make him look to his godson, Sirius causally expressed his lack of regret for the potentially fatal prank he played on Snape.

\- Sirius never even bothered acting mature in front of Harry and openly got into a pissing contest with Snape in front of Harry.

\- Nothing Sirius said has ever concretely proven to be a lie (aside from assumptions)

\- Sirius never lied about James prior to being confronted either. He never said James was a remarkably kind person, or that James was the epitome of virtue. (He said James was a good friend to him, good to him, was reckless and loved risk)

\- Sirius admitted that James still wasn't all perfect even after he improved

\- He admitted that James still hexed Snape and Lily didn't know about it

\- So when Sirius said James deflated his head and was a good person who grew out of it, I don't see why he would suddenly make that up.

\- Sirius and Remus don't just casually say that James changed. Sirius is specific with "deflated his head a bit" to which Remus adds "and stopped hexing people for fun,"

 **4.)** **If Sirius and Remus wanted to lie, they could have just said that James changed completely rather than admit he still hexed Snape**

\- People say that Remus was lying about Snape never losing an opportunity to curse James, but if he really wanted to lie, why not lie that James completely stopped hexing Snape? (I covered more on this in chapter 2)

 **5.)** **I don't take Lily for a fool**

\- Lily is supposed to be smart, I don't see how she can be fooled by a clever act for years

\- Then there's also James and Lily showing up together as dead spirits twice to guide Harry which to me makes it odd to me if he was putting on a façade throughout the relationship.

 **6.)** **I don't take Dumbledore for a fool**

\- Dumbledore made James headboy and recruited him in the Order

\- If James joined the Order for less than noble reasons, Dumbledore would have seen right through him

\- The idea that James managed to fool Dumbledore would require him being even more cunning than Tom Riddle as Tom Riddle himself didn't manage to fool Dumbledore

\- By the above logic, I personally question why James wasn't placed in Slytherin if he was that cunning and manipulative. (I'm not saying Slytherin is the evil house, but cunning and manipulative are Slytherin traits)

\- Dumbledore seemed close enough to James that James lent him his heirloom (the cloak)

\- I also say it's odd for a devil in disguise to be generous enough to lend his cloak to Dumbles.

\- Dumbledore said he knew James well inside and outside of Hogwarts and can say for certain that he would have spared Peter, showing that he believed James held a high regard for a life and was forgiving/ honorable enough to spare someone who betrayed him (showing Dumbledore's good opinion of James in my opinion)

 **7.)** **The idea that James was putting on an act requires questioning the intelligence of Dumbledore, McGonagall, Mad Eye Moody and Lily (to me)**

\- I've covered Dumbledore and Lily above

\- The first time McGonagall smiles at Harry (In the Philosopher's Stone) is when she discovers Harry has his father's Quidditch skills.

\- She said "your father would be so proud. He was an excellent Quidditch player," indicating that she was happy at the thought of James being proud of something. To me, this implies her fondness of him.

\- Another thing indicating her fondness for him is her crying over his death and the death of Lily. To me, if she was only crying for Lily, she would just have mentioned Lily.

\- Madeye Moody also seemed to have a positive opinion of James and Moody is usually suspicious and weary of people.

\- Plus, James doesn't strike me as cunning and manipulative, but impulsive, reckless and idiotic instead. Even James' death was impulsive, reckless and idiotic, though I do admire him defending his family.

 **8.)** **I personally don't find him to have been a bad person to begin with**

\- Some people speak as if James' change is an unbelievable change of a demon to a saint, but to me, he was never a demon and neither did he change to a saint. To me, he changed from a deeply flawed person to a marginally less flawed person.

\- James may have been a jerk, a bully, spoilt, entitled, arrogant, attention seeking and a showoff, but this doesn't mean he didn't have any good in him.

\- Pottermore states that James and Sirius took a liking to Remus because of his kindness and quiet sense of humor.

 **( writing-by-jk-rowling/remus-lupin) - writing-by-jk-rowling/remus-lupin  
**

\- To me, if he was such a demon, he would not have admired kindness

\- Sirius said that Remus sometimes made James and him ashamed of themselves.

\- To me, if he was such a demon, he would not have the ability to feel ashamed of himself by looking at Remus' goodness.

\- If he sometimes felt ashamed of himself when looking at Remus, it's not unbelievable that he gradually began acting on that shame and improving himself.

\- He didn't shun Remus because he was a werewolf. To me this showed that he was capable of sympathy and kindness (even if he wasn't generally a kind and empathetic person)

\- He was friends with misfits, a werewolf/ half-blood (Remus), a half-giant (Hagrid) and he married a muggle-born

\- To me, the people he associated with says a lot about his character

\- Aside from the above, I found that he had brief glimpses of a softer side in Snape's Worst Memory despite him being a total asshole throughout most of the scene (one example being him getting enraged when Snape called Lily a mudblood)

\- For whatever reason, he risked his life to save Snape from Sirius' prank (I will cover this in another chapter)

\- To me, he's a lot like the Weasley twins whom are good people (to me)

\- The Weasley twins were also capable of being outright criminal towards people they didn't like or people that annoyed them (remember how the shoved Montague into the vanishing cabinet and were callous about what happened to him?). But this didn't make them bad people.

\- I also find his co-bully and partner in crime, Sirius a generally good person as an adult even if he didn't change that much and was unhinged from Azkaban. This makes me more confident James himself was generally a good person, albeit a flawed one.

 **9.)** **His post-change actions**

\- His disagreement with Vernon Dursley

\- I've covered my take on his disagreement with Vernon Dursley in chapter 2

\- Long story cut short, he was said to feel ashamed that he angered Vernon and made Lily cry.

\- Back to my point of him being capable of feeling shame.

\- Plus even if he made a mistake, he agreed to be the bigger man and make things up with Vernon despite the disagreement being at least equally Vernon's fault.

\- He put up with being treated horribly by Vernon at the Dursley's wedding when he planned on making it up with Vernon.

\- That being said, I do not think that he made a 180 change. He didn't quite give up his feud with Snape. He was still antagonistic towards Snape, though Remus said it was mutual. (I covered why I think Remus is telling the truth about the mutual feud in chapter 2)

\- He kept his feud with Snape from her, but it doesn't necessarily mean their whole relationship was a deception. Even Ron kept from Hermione that he confounded his driving examiner.

\- Furthermore, he was still reckless, mischievous, immature and probably not quite responsible (But these flaws don't make him a bad person to me)

\- But I do think that he was less arrogant and showy and that he stopped hexing people for fun (aside from Snape)

\- To me, he appeared more jovial, mischievous and cheeky in the muggle-cop prequel compared to nasty, arrogant, and bullying.

 **10.)** **He could have remained neutral and become a famous Quidditch player or something**

\- Rowling said that Voldemort tried to recruit both Lily and him

\- He could have chosen power and joined Voldy

\- He didn't have to join the Order

\- If he was so full of himself, he could have remained neutral and became a famous Quidditch player or something (The Weasleys remained neutral during WWI)

\- If Lily was the problem, he was not obliged to stay with her in the first place

 **11.)** **James would have gotten tired of playing "good guy"**

\- If James really only pretended to change in front of Lily, he would have grown tired of keeping up his "good guy" act

\- I don't see him sticking with Lily and marrying her if he was putting on a façade

\- To me, if he was pretending for the mere goal of getting Lily, he would have dumped Lily months after he got her and moved on to a new conquest

\- He would have found a girl who condoned his bad behavior instead (like Lucius found Narcissa)

\- A guy pretending to be good is also unlikely to stick around when his life is in danger.

\- Even when Harry was Voldy's target, James stuck around and went into hiding with them.

 **12.)** **J.K. Rowling gave James and Lily matching patronuses**

\- In an interview, J.K. Rowling said that it was not a coincidence that James and Lily's patronuses were complementary

\- Chely: James patronus is a stag and lilys a doe is that a coincidence?

\- J.K. Rowling: No, the Patronus often mutates to take the image of the love of one's life (because they so often become the 'happy thought' that generates a Patronus).  
30 July 2007 Bloomsbury live chat with J.K. Rowling

\- ( )

\- To me, it would be odd that Rowling gave them matching patroni if she intended their relationship to be James' deception.

 **13.)** **If he wanted to attack people in a more legal way just for his glory days, it makes more sense for him to have become an Auror**

\- As I understand, the Order is not really government authorized, but a secret organization started by Dumbledore.

\- It would be more legal if he attacked people as a government Auror

 **14.)** **J.K. Rowling never made it clear that he didn't change**

\- There's nothing in the text about James not changing

\- Even if there's no room in the books, she had many articles on Pottermore and many interviews in which she could have revealed he was a "devil in disguise" who was only fooling Lily.

\- Instead, she said on Pottermore that he changed his priorities to focus on the war and a world beyond Hogwarts. Perfect opportunity to for her to have wrote that he only joined the Order because he was forced by Lily or because he wanted to attack people and live his glory days. But yet she didn't.

 **15.)** **James not changing adds no purpose to the plot**

\- James being a bully served a purpose for Snape's character arch and Harry seeing his father was less than perfect.

\- But James remaining a jerk or being a devil in disguise adds no purpose to the plot since he's dead throughout the series.

\- So it makes no sense to me why Rowling would intend that James is someone who remained the same priced dick he was in SWM and was just fooling Lily. It really adds nothing to the plot.

\- Not to mention Rowling showed James as a dead soul guiding Harry and gave Harry his stag as a patronus, both of which would be odd if she intended James to be a bad person.

\- Plus, Rowling reformed Harry's bullies, Draco and Dudley, so I really don't get why she would intend Harry's own father didn't change. Makes no sense to me.

 **16.)** **I see no reason to be pessimistic about a fictional character's change. I don't lose anything by it. If James was a real life person, than maybe I'd be weary, but only maybe.**

Sure, you may be able to come up with twists for every point I point that brought up above, but to me (in my opinion), if you have to come up with that many twists for a reality to be possible, the possibility of that reality reduces. Plus, it would be odd if J.K. Rowling just expected her readers to come up with that many twists that were no stated on text by themselves and deduce James was a devil in disguise. Again, I'm NOT saying that I know what JKR thinks. I meant that it would be odd if that's what she intended.

Anyways, this is just how I feel. I do not think of James changed to be the paragon of light and virtue. I just think he improved marginally to be a better, still flawed, but a better person. That's basically how it is with Harry Potter characters. They're all mostly complex characters with good and bad. I think the main problem is that the author used a tell instead of show technique in showing his change.


End file.
